Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.95 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Shiv Jee Singh. 2. Malik Singh. 3. Ramesh Singh. 4. Krishna Pd. Singh. All are sons of Late Rajendra Singh and are R/O Village- Babhangawa, P.S. Parsa, District - Saran at Chapra. .... Defendants….Respondents .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Akhilesh Singh. 2. Upendra Singh. 3. Ranjeet Singh. 4. Rakesh Singh. All are sons of Late Ram Sanehi Singh 5. Raj Kumari Devi. 6. Sobha Devi. 7. Sima Kumari. All are daughters of Late Ram Saneshi Singh. 8. Mosmat Sarswati Kuar, W/O Late Ram Sanehi Singh. All are residents of Village - Babhangawa, P.S. Parsa, District - Saran at Chapra. .... Plaintiffs….Appellants .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary. For the Respondent/s : Mr. K.N. Choubey, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.N. Choubey Mr. Gopal Swaroop Dubey
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Siddharth Harsh. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 5 05-12-2013 This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.1.2012/1.2.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.C.-II), Saran at Chapra in Title Appeal No.74 of 2006, whereby the appellate court below while reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2000/11.8.2000 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Saran at Chapra in Patna High Court SA No.95 of 2012 (5) dt.05-12-2013 2 Title Suit No.302 of 1994, has allowed the appeal. I shall be referring to the status of the parties as it existed before the trial court unless clarified with specific reference. The suit in question was filed by the plaintiff to declare the sale-deeds stated to have been executed by him in favour of the defendants dated 28.10.1994 as void documents. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had gone to Village-Anay for some work on 27.10.1994 and while he was returning from that village the defendant nos.1 to 4 kidnapped him in a car and kept him confined in a room at Chapra. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 28.10.1994 the defendants forcibly took his left thumb-impression on different stamp papers and later in the afternoon they also brought a person who again took his left thumb-impression on certain papers, whereafter he was released. An FIR was instituted by the grand-son of the plaintiff Upendra Singh giving rise to Parsa P.S. Case No.96 of 1994 which was led as Exhibit-3. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he later gathered information that the defendants had fraudulently got prepared certain sale-deeds on the said stamp papers and which stood confirmed when he took certified copies thereof on 31.10.1994 and which showed that the defendants had got Patna High Court SA No.95 of 2012 (5) dt.05-12-2013 3 prepared three sale-deeds which were registered on 28.10.1994. It was the case of the plaintiff that the sale-deeds were forged documents and even if it did bear his left thumb impression, the mode and manner in which it has been executed and the fact that no consideration money had passed on to him was sufficient to prove the charges. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he had executed a mortgaged deed in favour of the wife of Gorakh Singh who was in possession of the suit land. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. It was the specific case of the defendants that following an agreement for the sale of suit land, the plaintiff himself had got the sale-deed prepared and put his left thumb-impression thereon. It was the case of the defendants that the plaintiff himself presented those sale-deeds on 28.10.1994 before the Registrar and also accepted the execution thereof. The story of kidnapping was denied by the defendants and they also denied of having taken left thumb- impression of the plaintiff over the stamp papers. The defendants claimed possession over the suit land. It was the case of the defendants that Gorakh Singh had no concern over the suit land nor was he in possession thereof and the story has been introduced by the plaintiff merely to prejudice the case. They Patna High Court SA No.95 of 2012 (5) dt.05-12-2013 4 stressed upon payment of the consideration amount. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings framed seven issues which runs as follows: 1. Has the suit framed by the plaintiff maintainable? 2. Have the defendants forcibly and fraudulently took the L.T.I. or signature on the sale deeds? 3. Has the plaintiff right and title regarding the suit properties? 4. Is the defendant is bonafide purchaser of the properties given in the suit properties mentioned in the schedules-1 & 2 of the plaint? 5. Are the defendants is genuine purchaser of the land in question which executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants? 6. Is the plaintiff entitled to recover possession? 7. Have the plaintiff entitle to get relief and reliefs in eye of law? The trial court on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence on record dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.7.2000/11.8.2000. The plaintiff being aggrieved preferred Title Appeal No.74 of 2006 and which was allowed by Patna High Court SA No.95 of 2012 (5) dt.05-12-2013 5 the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.1.2012/1.2.2012 and the judgment of the trial court was reversed. The defendants being aggrieved is in appeal before this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the defendants as appellants before this Court. The plaintiff has suo-motu appeared through counsel. Of the issues framed by the trial court, issue nos.2, 4, and 5 are the core issues requiring a determination. The facts of the case having been discussed hereinabove it is manifest that whereas it is the case of the plaintiff that the sale-deeds in question were got prepared by the defendants after forcibly taking his left thumb impression on stamp papers and thus had been prepared by resorting to fraud, the defendants have contested the contentions on grounds of having been executed by the plaintiff on his volition. It is thus to be seen whether the plaintiff has been able to make out a case and whether the appellate court below having accepted the same, there is any error in the judgment and decree impugned. It is not in dispute that following the complaint of the plaintiff regarding his alleged abduction on 27.10.1994 a police case was registered as Parsa P.S. Case No.96 of 1994 under sections 364 of the Indian Penal Code. The police case having been contested in Sessions Trial Patna High Court SA No.95 of 2012 (5) dt.05-12-2013 6 No.244 of 1997, vide judgment and order passed by the trial court of 9th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, the accused defendants were found guilty under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, meaning thereby the allegation made by the plaintiff regarding his abduction was upheld by the criminal court. The appellate court below has relied upon section 43 of the Evidence Act to support his conclusion on this issue. The judgment passed in Sessions Trial No.244 of 1997 was led as Exhibit-4. The second aspect which creates a cloud on the contentions advanced by the defendants is regarding the mode and manner of execution of the sale-deeds in question and the payment of the consideration money. Neither the defendants could be able to justify the circumstances in which the Commissioner was appointed for registration of the document or the circumstances prevailing for invoking such provision nor have they been able to prove the payment of consideration amount. Whereas the deed is stated to have been executed on 5.9.1994, it was registered before the Commissioner on 28.10.1994 and the time lag of almost two months is not explained. The aspects aforementioned are sufficient to prove Patna High Court SA No.95 of 2012 (5) dt.05-12-2013 7 that the sale-deeds were got executed by the defendants by resorting to fraud and by forcibly taking the left thumb impression of the plaintiff as also without payment of any consideration amount. An additional factor which goes in favour of the plaintiff is the appointment of commissioner for the registration of the sale-deeds in absence of any circumstance warranting such appointment. For the reasons aforementioned I am not persuaded to interfere with the judgment and decree impugned and this appeal failing to raise any substantial question of law, is dismissed accordingly. SKPathak/- (Jyoti Saran, J)